User talk:Oneshotofwhiskey
Leave messages here
Oneshotofwhiskey, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Oneshotofwhiskey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
Vandalism?
P.O.V. vandalism? You don't have to agree with every edit you see, but I hope you're aware that falsely accusing others of vandalism is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I got your message. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your original statement. I didn't realise it was referring to something else. DarkKnight2149 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, David Irving, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David.moreno72 10:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan 17:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. Slip of the mouse. I've restored your edit. Yintan 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Yintan 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Archived
SPI round two
You really shouldn't have done that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, because Round One went so well for you Buster Douglas. See you at the SPI.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Oneshotofwhiskey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16731 was submitted on Oct 16, 2016 16:30:20. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dinesh D'Souza and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sexual Harassment
Hi Oneshot. I believe that the term "sexual harassment" refers to a situation in which the two parties are both employees or are affiliates the same company or school. I think the term is defined to mean unwanted attention or innuendo within a workplace or other institutional setting. Thus the actions described by the People Mag reporter would not be called sexual harassment, because she was not otherwise affiliated with him except as to the transaction that brought them together that day. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You've been socking
I can't wait to see how you explain this one away.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —DoRD (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oneshotofwhiskey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, I was essentially blocked for failing to login in. This is a common mistake and a thoughtful examination of my edits and my accuser should make it clear that he was aware of this much. He simply exploited it for gain. One only need to look at his smug warning above to see that he is driven by an angry, disruptive agenda![[1]] He said "we will see how you plan to get out of this one!" Is that the language of a good faith editor???? Of course not! Shame on the rest of you if you let this stand. I was in the middle of an API with that editor. Do you guys honestly think I just lost my mind and started socking????? Again, if you look at my edits when I forgot to login, there was no instance of me EVER trying to pretend to be another person. It's on your consciences if you enable this cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic.
P.S. I had also tried to respond to the SPI but by then it was too late! I didn't find out about this until AFTER the block. I tried to use my work IP to respond to one of the admins involved AND the SPI itself but later was accused of trying to evade the block. In my defense, I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma this way since I limited my edits to this issue and this issue alone. Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Okay! I thought I was logged in when I was editing on that starbucks wifi IP!!!!! I never claimed to be someone else. In fact, my responses from the IP was continuing a dialogue I was having on the talkpage of the article. That much should've been clear! Sometimes people forget to login!!!! And the charge of socking is meant to imply that I was pretending to be two people!!!! This is an underhanded tactic and unforunately I can NOT properly respond because I've been blocked! Couldn't the disruptive editor who filed this SPI against me (or another admin) have come to my page and simply asked me if was the anon IP????? If then I denied it, then sure, bust me!!! But never in those edits was I pretending to be some random editor trying to come to my rescue or all the absurd things that socks do to create the illusion of consensus. Again, unless this is some new rule where forgetting the sign in is tantamount to "socking" or getting banned, this wouldn't have been the first time I forgot to login! I was at work, on my break grabbing some coffee next door, I thought I was still logged in my account from before! Ridiculous. This is NOT supposed to be how wikipedia works!! The disruptive editor who set up this kangaroo SPI continues to dishonestly suggest that he's not gaming the system AND continues to suggest I'm some past user named skepticsanonymous. In fact this editor is currently part of an API where part of the charge against him is using procedure to game the system. This is his third attempt to game the system through SPIs. Again, I was essentially blocked for failing to login in. This is a common mistake and a thoughtful examination of my edits and my accuser should make it clear that he was aware of this much. He simply exploited it for gain. One only need to look at his smug warning above to see that he is driven by an angry, disruptive agenda![[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oneshotofwhiskey&diff=746244871&oldid=746098573]] He said "we will see how you plan to get out of this one!" Is that the language of a good faith editor???? Of course not! Shame on the rest of you if you let this stand. I was in the middle of an API with that editor. Do you guys honestly think I just lost my mind and started socking????? Again, if you look at my edits when I forgot to login, there was no instance of me EVER trying to pretend to be another person. It's on your consciences if you enable this cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic. P.S. I had also tried to respond to the SPI but by then it was too late! I didn't find out about this until AFTER the block. I tried to use my work IP to respond to one of the admins involved AND the SPI itself but later was accused of trying to evade the block. In my defense, I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma this way since I limited my edits to this issue and this issue alone. [[User:Oneshotofwhiskey|Oneshotofwhiskey]] ([[User talk:Oneshotofwhiskey#top|talk]]) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Okay! I thought I was logged in when I was editing on that starbucks wifi IP!!!!! I never claimed to be someone else. In fact, my responses from the IP was continuing a dialogue I was having on the talkpage of the article. That much should've been clear! Sometimes people forget to login!!!! And the charge of socking is meant to imply that I was pretending to be two people!!!! This is an underhanded tactic and unforunately I can NOT properly respond because I've been blocked! Couldn't the disruptive editor who filed this SPI against me (or another admin) have come to my page and simply asked me if was the anon IP????? If then I denied it, then sure, bust me!!! But never in those edits was I pretending to be some random editor trying to come to my rescue or all the absurd things that socks do to create the illusion of consensus. Again, unless this is some new rule where forgetting the sign in is tantamount to "socking" or getting banned, this wouldn't have been the first time I forgot to login! I was at work, on my break grabbing some coffee next door, I thought I was still logged in my account from before! Ridiculous. This is NOT supposed to be how wikipedia works!! The disruptive editor who set up this kangaroo SPI continues to dishonestly suggest that he's not gaming the system AND continues to suggest I'm some past user named skepticsanonymous. In fact this editor is currently part of an API where part of the charge against him is using procedure to game the system. This is his third attempt to game the system through SPIs. Again, I was essentially blocked for failing to login in. This is a common mistake and a thoughtful examination of my edits and my accuser should make it clear that he was aware of this much. He simply exploited it for gain. One only need to look at his smug warning above to see that he is driven by an angry, disruptive agenda![[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oneshotofwhiskey&diff=746244871&oldid=746098573]] He said "we will see how you plan to get out of this one!" Is that the language of a good faith editor???? Of course not! Shame on the rest of you if you let this stand. I was in the middle of an API with that editor. Do you guys honestly think I just lost my mind and started socking????? Again, if you look at my edits when I forgot to login, there was no instance of me EVER trying to pretend to be another person. It's on your consciences if you enable this cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic. P.S. I had also tried to respond to the SPI but by then it was too late! I didn't find out about this until AFTER the block. I tried to use my work IP to respond to one of the admins involved AND the SPI itself but later was accused of trying to evade the block. In my defense, I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma this way since I limited my edits to this issue and this issue alone. [[User:Oneshotofwhiskey|Oneshotofwhiskey]] ([[User talk:Oneshotofwhiskey#top|talk]]) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Okay! I thought I was logged in when I was editing on that starbucks wifi IP!!!!! I never claimed to be someone else. In fact, my responses from the IP was continuing a dialogue I was having on the talkpage of the article. That much should've been clear! Sometimes people forget to login!!!! And the charge of socking is meant to imply that I was pretending to be two people!!!! This is an underhanded tactic and unforunately I can NOT properly respond because I've been blocked! Couldn't the disruptive editor who filed this SPI against me (or another admin) have come to my page and simply asked me if was the anon IP????? If then I denied it, then sure, bust me!!! But never in those edits was I pretending to be some random editor trying to come to my rescue or all the absurd things that socks do to create the illusion of consensus. Again, unless this is some new rule where forgetting the sign in is tantamount to "socking" or getting banned, this wouldn't have been the first time I forgot to login! I was at work, on my break grabbing some coffee next door, I thought I was still logged in my account from before! Ridiculous. This is NOT supposed to be how wikipedia works!! The disruptive editor who set up this kangaroo SPI continues to dishonestly suggest that he's not gaming the system AND continues to suggest I'm some past user named skepticsanonymous. In fact this editor is currently part of an API where part of the charge against him is using procedure to game the system. This is his third attempt to game the system through SPIs. Again, I was essentially blocked for failing to login in. This is a common mistake and a thoughtful examination of my edits and my accuser should make it clear that he was aware of this much. He simply exploited it for gain. One only need to look at his smug warning above to see that he is driven by an angry, disruptive agenda![[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oneshotofwhiskey&diff=746244871&oldid=746098573]] He said "we will see how you plan to get out of this one!" Is that the language of a good faith editor???? Of course not! Shame on the rest of you if you let this stand. I was in the middle of an API with that editor. Do you guys honestly think I just lost my mind and started socking????? Again, if you look at my edits when I forgot to login, there was no instance of me EVER trying to pretend to be another person. It's on your consciences if you enable this cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic. P.S. I had also tried to respond to the SPI but by then it was too late! I didn't find out about this until AFTER the block. I tried to use my work IP to respond to one of the admins involved AND the SPI itself but later was accused of trying to evade the block. In my defense, I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma this way since I limited my edits to this issue and this issue alone. [[User:Oneshotofwhiskey|Oneshotofwhiskey]] ([[User talk:Oneshotofwhiskey#top|talk]]) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Bye!Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oneshotofwhiskey claims that "a thoughtful examination" of his IP edits would reveal he was merely "continuing a dialogue I was having on the talkpage of the article." In reality, he was attempting to vote twice in an RfC—only employing the IP to introduce a nearly identical comment after his earlier attempts were reverted. Moreover, even if his IP revert on Dinesh D'Souza was accidental, Oneshotofwhiskey's edit history shows that he made numerous logged-in edits not long afterwards (between 22:25 on October 25 and 01:19 on October 26, all predating the filing of my SPI by several hours)—yet not one of them was a self-revert. Finally, Oneshotofwhiskey admits to block evasion, but pleads "I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma." This rationale begs the question: Why didn't he appeal before he evaded?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- This wiki-stalking from this disruptive editor speaks volumes about this situation. Did he really need to come here and say ANY of this? I did NOT vote twice on purpose, and certainly not when I wasn't logged in. That has NOTHING to do with the unnecessary SPI from the editor. Also, when/if I did log in later on it is only because I had restarted my iphone after updating it to the new iOS10.1 and I presumed it had logged me out. Again, the boring truth is I made those edits WITHOUT knowing I was logged in at the time. This editor would be hardpressed to show any proof that I was pretending to be another person or fake an identity, which is what is meant by socking. As for the rest, yes, I technically evaded the block for the purpose of trying to make others involved aware of this SPI harassment. However, bear in mind: I didn't learn of the block until AFTER I was blocked. True, I didn't think there was any harm in trying to offer my side of the story since the block happened SO quickly I was denied my chance to defend myself when the SPI went up. The appeal is complicated and involved, when I'm at work I simply don't have the time or equipment to properly pursue that. However, given that I am fairly new, I only noticed later the appeal template. Proof of this is that this appeal was copied and pasted from an earlier protest on my talk page BEFORE I knew that I could properly format it for the appeal here. Look at my edit history if you doubt that.
- Do what you will, but no one should be blocked for simply failing to log in AND this editor clear mislead and manipulated that SPI with the agenda of the edit war he is currently being investigated for in the API I was a part of.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)